Orissa High Court halts vending zone construction near Madhusudan Law University, cites 100-metre no-hawking rule

It was contended that construction of vending zone adjacent to the northern side of the boundary wall of the 2nd campus of Madhusudan Law University would cause road congestion leading to traffic problems, water logging, noise and other pollution.

Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court: In a writ petition seeking a stay on the construction activity around Madhusudan Law University at Rehman Square, Jobra, Cuttack, S.K. Sahoo and M.S. Sahoo, JJ., directed a stay on the construction work considering the settled position that bar hawking within 100 meters from any educational institution. The decision was made after considering the issues faced by the students, local people, and the problem of drainage and sewerage systems with special emphasis on the safety question of 300 or more female students.

Background

The petitioner’s case was that the construction of a vending zone adjacent to the northern side of the boundary wall of the  second campus of the Madhusudan  Law  University would raise the issue of road congestion leading to traffic problems, water logging, noise, and other pollution, study atmosphere. Itwas also emphasised that the campus activities would be hampered and more particularly risk the safety of 300 or more girl students residing in the newly constructed building complex.

Analysis and Decision

Placing reference on the Bombay Hawkers’ Union v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 528, wherein it was discussed and held that there should be no hawking within 100 meters of any educational institution, the Court directed to place a stay on the construction of the vending  zone  in  front  of/adjacent  to  the  boundary  wall  of  the 2nd  campus  of  the University till the next date of hearing.

[Aroop Kumar Deo v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) (P.I.L.) No.10157 of 2025, Decided on: 20-05-2025]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Jateswar Nayak,  Addl. Govt. Advocate; Dr. Purusottam Chuli, Advocate

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *